State v. Eli
126 Haw. 510
Haw.2012Background
- Defendant Eli was arrested Oct. 27, 2007 for assaulting his seven‑month‑old daughter and transported to the police station.
- He was indicted Oct. 31, 2007 for attempted murder in the second degree with a special circumstance concerning the child’s age.
- On June 9, 2009 the State moved to determine voluntariness of Eli’s statement; a hearing occurred June 12, 2009 with Detective describing a pre‑Miranda invitation to speak.
- Detective testified that on Oct. 27, 2007 he asked Eli if he wanted to give a statement, calling it “a chance to give his side of the story” before administering warnings, then gave Miranda warnings and obtained a waiver.
- A second HPD‑81 form from Oct. 28, 2007 showed Eli refusing to waive rights; the court determined the Oct. 27 statement was voluntary; the jury later convicted Eli of attempted manslaughter (amended March 4, 2010).
- The Hawaii Supreme Court vacated the conviction, suppressed the Oct. 27 statement, and remanded for a new trial, holding the pre‑interview tainted the later Mirandized statement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the pre‑Miranda pre‑interview violated the Hawaii Constitution. | State argued voluntariness; no Miranda warnings were required for the pre‑interview. | Eli’s pre‑interview invocation and pre‑warning questions tainted the later statement. | Yes; the pre‑interview violated rights and tainted the subsequent Miranda statement. |
| Whether the post‑Miranda confession was admissible as fruit of the pre‑Miranda violation. | Post‑Miranda confession could be admitted if attenuated from the pre‑Miranda violation. | Post‑Miranda confession was tainted and should be excluded. | No; taint not dissipated; post‑Miranda confession excluded. |
| Whether the detective’s pre‑interview conduct rendered the entire statement involuntary under due process. | Conduct did not unlawfully coerce; warnings not required for pre‑interview. | Pre‑interview questions coerced or improperly induced a waiver. | The conduct violated due process; statement not admissible. |
| Whether the pre‑Miranda questioning was custody‑interrogation under Miranda. | Custody existed; questioning occurred in a custodial setting. | Questions were preliminary and did not constitute interrogation. | Custody and interrogation requirements triggered Miranda warnings. |
| Whether Kekona’s recording rule per se invalidates the statement obtained after an unrecorded waiver. | Rule requires recorded interrogations; unrecorded waiver should be inadmissible. | Kekona does not mandate per se exclusion; credibility questions remain with the court. | Rejected as per Kekona; not per se inadmissible. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Kekona, 77 Hawai`i 403, 886 P.2d 740 (1994) (recording policies; due process not strictly requiring recording)
- State v. Luton, 83 Hawai`i 443, 927 P.2d 844 (1996) (post‑Miranda statements may be admissible if not tainted by prior illegality)
- State v. Joseph, 109 Hawai`i 482, 128 P.3d 795 (2006) (pre‑interview taint; fruit‑of‑the‑poisonous‑tree analysis for post‑Miranda statements)
- State v. Naititi, 104 Hawai`i 224, 87 P.3d 893 (2004) (preliminary questions not custodial; warnings required when interrogation begins)
- State v. Ketchum, 97 Hawai`i 107, 34 P.3d 1006 (2001) (Miranda warnings prerequisites; custodial interrogation)